The real story behind Australia's unlucky number 87 | cricket.com.au The real story behind Australia's unlucky number 87 02 November 2014 Mitch Marsh the latest Aussie to make 87 | Getty Images Sam Ferris @samuelfez Revealing one of cricket's great misconceptions When Mitchell Marsh fell for a defiant 87 on the evening of the third day in Abu Dhabi, the young allrounder was dismissed on what is widely known as cricket’s Devil number. Considered the unluckiest number in Australian cricket, many know 87 as taboo for being 13 short of the coveted 100 every batsman pursues. But that’s not the reason why the number 87 is said to be possessed by the Devil when associated with an unlucky batsman. Quick Single: Rookie Marsh leads the way The origin of the superstition stretches back 85 years to December 1929, when a 10-year-old Keith Miller was watching Australia’s greatest cricketer in a Sheffield Shield match at the MCG.

Don Bradman was putting on a batting master class for NSW against hosts Victoria, when out of nowhere the Don was bowled neck and crop by Harry ‘Bull’ Alexander on 87. Miller was stunned. How could this happen to his hero? The number became a fixation for Miller, who would rifle through newspapers for club cricket scorecards in search for the unlucky figure. The shock of Bradman’s untimely demise stayed with Miller. The legend spread when Miller was playing district cricket for South Melbourne alongside future Test captain Ian Johnson. Johnson was dismissed on 87, providing Miller the opportunity to recount the famous incident and offer his unholy theory. The myth began circling the cricket community and became folklore after World War II when Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson heard of it. However, as the hype around the superstition reached its highest point, Miller decided to review the scorebook of the match only to find a shocking revelation. Bradman was actually bowled for 89. Miller blamed the slow MCG scorecard for the error, but the damage had been done, 87 would remain forever as the Devil’s number.

Marsh’s exit on 87 was the 14th time an Australian has been dismissed on the haunting score, and it’s not the only time a Marsh has surrendered his innings 13 short of a century, with father Geoff snapped up by the Devil in a one-day international against England in 1988. The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Cricket Australia. About the Writer Story of unlucky scores in cricket - Sportzwiki Story of unlucky scores in cricket tweet Do you know what is an unlucky score in cricket world? It’s “111”, which is known as “Nelson”. Nelson is believed to be an unlucky score, especially in some English cricket. However, there is no real reason to consider that particular number as unlucky in cricket but it is believed that the “111” score looks like a wicket without bails. In cricket, a batsman is out if any bail is dislodged from the wicket, and that’s the reason “111” is considered as unlucky score in cricket.

Even, every multiple of the number is also known as unlucky (222 = “Double Nelson”, 333 = “Triple Nelson” etc) Although according to an investigation by the magazine “The Cricketer” in the 1990s found that wickets are no more likely to fall on Nelson and indeed, the score at which most wickets fall is 0 (a duck). So basically “111” is a superstition in cricket. Why “111” is known as “Nelson”? The origin of the “Nelson” name comes from Lord Nelson. Horatio Nelson is known as Lord Nelson was a flag officer in the Royal Navy. He was very famous for his inspirational leadership, superb grasp of strategy and unconventional tactics which resulted in a number of decisive naval victories. Lord Nelson Out of Lord Nelson’s many victories, the best known was the “Battle of Trafalgar” in 1805 where he was shot and killed. It is believed that Lord Nelson had only “one eye, one arm and one leg” near the end of his life.

The “111” refers to Lord Nelson’s lost eye, arm and leg; and that’s why “111” is known as “Nelson” However, the fact was actually incorrect because Lord Nelson had both of his legs intact, and the third missing body part is mythical. On the other hand, longtime cricket historian and scorer, Bill Frindall once mentioned the “111” score as “one eye, one arm and one etcetera” as he referred the third body part was “something else”. However, it was also equally mythical. In the alternate meaning, “111” refers to “one eye, one arm, and one ambition” or “one arm, one eye, one destiny” or “one Eye, one Arm, one Ars**ole”. Also in other sense, “111” commemorates Lord Nelson’s three great naval victories: Copenhagen, The Nile, and Trafalgar. “111” refers to “won, won, won” in that sense. Some interesting stories about “Nelson” in cricket world Former famous international cricket umpire David Shepherd made the “Nelson” or “111” popular in the international cricket.

From the childhood, Shepherd raised a leg or both legs from the ground on the “Nelson” score (also on double nelson, triple nelson) to avoid ill fortune, which he had continued in the international cricket. After noticing it, the crowd had also cheered him for that. Once in a radio interview, David Shepherd had explained the “Nelson” as “One arm, one eye and one lump of sugar in his tea.” David Shepherd during “Nelson” On 11th November 2011, in a Test match between South Africa vs Australia at Cape Town, South Africa required 111 runs to win at the time 11:11. In that rarest occasion, the scoreboard was reading 11:11, 11/11/11 and majority of the crowd did Shepherd’s leg raise along with one of the field umpire Ian Gould. The rarest scoreboard ever in international cricket There was a domestic cricket team in New Zealand, which name was Nelson, had played in the first-class cricket during 1874-1891. Incidentally, in their both fast and last first-class innings, they bowled out at 111.

The other unlucky score in cricket There is another equivalent superstitious in the Australian cricket is the score “87” which is popularly known as “Devil’s Number”. Some Australian commentators and journalists consider “87” as unlucky score as it is 13 runs short of the century (100 runs) for a batsman and for that’s reason “87” is called as “Devil’s Number”. The reason behind the myth of “87” as unlucky number The “Devil’s Number” 87 came to be known when Ian Johnson was dismissed for 87 while playing grade cricket and Keith Miller commented, “That’s funny, I once saw Bradman (Don Bradman) dismissed for 87”. Miller was told in a match between New South Wales and Victoria at MCG in December 1929 where he claimed that Don Bradman had been dismissed on 87 runs. Keith Miller was just on 10-years old at that time, when he saw that Bradman’s incident.

Keith Miller From there the myth started gaining momentum that “87” as “Devil’s Number” However, later it was revealed that Bradman had been dismissed at 89 runs in that match. Miller blamed the slow MCG scorecard for the error. Don Bradman Bradman had never dismissed at 87 in his entire Test career. Even many other greatest Australian batsmen were never dismissed on the score 87. On the other hand, interestingly, Keith Miller ended his Test career after playing exactly 87 innings (in 55 Tests). Yet he was never dismissed on 87 runs in his Test career. TAGS Cricket Superstition by Barry Williams B a r r y W i l l i a m s Cricket Superstition Hit for Six Cricket, as generations of commentators from the SCG to Sabina Park, from Lords to Lahore, have never tired of iterating, is a funny game. And I have no doubt that even in Holland, the only country to have a 100% success rate against Australia, some Netherlandish Bjil Lawrij has more than once delivered himself of the observation, "Crijkit is a fjuni gejm".

Our many readers who have nominated the game of the flannelled fools as one of their interests, will probably agree. Cricket is a game that has inspired more prose and poetry than any mere sport; cricket doesn't have rules, it has Laws; cricket offers more statistics than a politician at election time. And it is in cricket's statistics and folklore that the dedicated devotee can find hours of innocent enjoyment. For instance, in what other field of esoteric knowledge could one glean the intelligence that a team of English professional cricketers who visited the United States in 1857, under the managership of a certain Fred Lillywhite, contained one Julius Caesar of Surrey. Julius Caesar? He must have been getting on a bit - or was this proof of reincarnation? And what of CB Fry, who, around the turn of the century, held the world long jump record, played soccer for England, played in 26 test matches for England and is alleged to have been offered the throne of Albania. How many tennis players could match that?

Delving further, one comes across the remarkable record of one JEBBPQC Dwyer, who played 60 matches for Sussex in the years 1906-9 and who twice took 9 wickets in an innings. An extreme example of the English parental eccentricity of giving more than two initials to future cricketers (PHB May, JWHT Douglas, DCS Compton et al) perhaps? Well, not really. John Elicius Benedict Bernard Placid Quirk Carrington Dwyer, the grandson of an Irish convict, was born in Sydney in 1876. Placid? Wow! Cricket consists of a series of 'Golden Ages', which have nothing to do with the 'New Age', but refer to the cricket played when the cricketophile was 10. Who could forget the unbeaten 'Immortal' Australian 1948 touring side?

Where others tried to remember the Seven Dwarfs to win a bar-room bet, the pre-war baby could rattle off Bradman, Hassett, Barnes, Morris, Harvey, Brown, Miller, Lindwall, Tallon, Johnson, Johnston, Loxton, Toshack, McCool, Saggers, Ring and Hammence, without looking at a book (and still can!). Bradman! Every devout cricket lover knows Sir Donald Bradman's test batting record as well as the Christian knows the Apostle's Creed. (52 tests; 80 innings; 10 not outs; 334 highest score; 6,996 runs; 99.94 average; 29 centuries.) And the lore. Needing Only 4 in his last test to finish with an average of 100, he was bowled second ball by a googly from Eric Hollies for 0. His average is more than 50% higher than the next best. He scored a century or better every third innings.

He still shares several test wicket partnership records, including the highest of all, 451 with Bill Ponsford for the second wicket, against England in 1934 (59 years ago). But only the truly devout could tell you The Don's test bowling record (160 balls; 3 maidens; 72 runs; 2 Wickets; 36.00 average.) And who were these two victims (a guaranteed free beer in any bar for knowing this)? George Nathanial Francis (West Indies) lbw Bradman 27, 1st Test, Adelaide, 1930 and the great Walter Hammond (England) bowled Bradman 85, 3rd Test, Adelaide, 1933 during the infamous 'Bodyline' series. There must have been something in the Adelaide wicket that suited The Don's bowling. . Now hang on a bit, I hear the gentle reader cry, just because he is the editor, how can he justify inflicting this harangue about cricket on us? After all, this is a journal dedicated to exploring the mysteries of the paranormal and pseudoscience, not the arcane lore of leather and willow.

There is nothing paranormal about cricket unless, as an American is once alleged to have said while watching a test match, it is proof of eternity. Well, let me tell you, there is a relevant point to all this and I have just been setting the scene. And, as everybody knows, if there is anything you can accuse a cricket buff of, it certainly isn't reticence. What brought me to this happy state was hearing, during the recent West Indies series, one of the ABC cricket commentators discussing the notoriously 'unlucky' score for Australian test batsmen of 87. Some 20 years ago, pre-Skeptics and pre-computers, I had sought to discover the truth of this superstition, whether in fact Australian batsmen had a tendency to be dismissed more requently on 87 than on other scores in the 80s. Since then, I have lost my data, but I can vaguely emember that there was no particular concentration of dismissals on that score.

Readers will appreciate that it was no simple matter to research every score made by every Australian batsman in the 520 test matches they have played in, from the first in 1877 until the lamented last test of the recent West Indies series. First to my local library to search Wisden's Book of Test Cricket, which lists all test matches between all countries. But where to begin? Clearly it would take at least as long as the famous 'Timeless Test', (England v South Africa, Durban, 1939. This match was abandoned, and declared a draw, on the tenth day of play because the England team had to board their ship home.), to list every score, so I decided to concentrate only on those between 70-100. Additionally, I sought the times when a wicket fell when the team score stood at 87. This research enlivened my lunch hours for more than a week, but was inconclusive because the Wisden in my library listed tests up to 1985 only. Where next?

A call to the NSW Cricket Association to seek access to more current books, elicited the information that the Association's librarian, Ross Dundas, should be able to help with my quest. Mr Dundas' name was not unfamiliar, as I had seen his imprint on a number of books of cricket statistics, so I called him. Not only did he have statistics on all the tests up to and including the latest, but he actually had a computer listing of the number of batsmen who had made every score that had been made from 0 to 334 (Don Bradman, A v E, Leeds, 1930). Would he make his list available to me? Of course he would; when cricket nut talks to cricket nut, nothing is too much trouble. What was the result, I hear you cry? Patience, dear reader, patience - triple centuries are not made in a day (well, not often at any rate – Don Bradman at Leeds, 1930, made 309 in one day, the only time this has been done in test cricket).

While searching the figures for my primary objective, I came across some other intriguing statistics, which I am sure will interest my fellow cricketophiles among the readership. Some of these should certainly be useful for baffling the fellow next to you in the pub. The lowest score at which no Australian has ever been dismissed is 139, although one batsman has been left on 139 not out. The lowest score that has never appeared in the scorebook beside a batsman's name is 148, while no batsman has ever been out for 150, though three have been left not out on that score. Between this score and 200, eight scores have never been made, 174, 175, 180, 186, 194, 195, 197 and 199. I could have gone on for ever, teasing Mr Dundas' figures for the odd result, but still no nearer discovering why 87 had attracted all the attention. I had some figures to work with, but I had not come any closer to finding why Australian commentators (and presumably players) thought this particular score was unlucky.

Some suggested that it was because the score was 13 short of a century, but then 13 should be a particularly unlucky score and, thanks to Ross Dundas' figures, I could see that 151 batsmen had been dismissed for 13, while 159 had made 12 and 158 had reached 14. The most unlucky score of all, of course, is 0, the dreaded 'duck' - 947 players have scored this non-score, 11.75% of all Australian test innings. It was at about this time that there occurred one of those coincidences that makes even the most hardened sceptic think that there must be some underlying purpose to the universe after all. In the February 6 issue of the Sydney Morning Herald,Good Weekend magazine, well known sporting journalist and author, Philip Derriman, had written an article about Harry "Bull" Alexander, a Victorian fast bowler and now Australia's oldest surviving test cricketer.

Alexander played in only one test match, the last of the 1932-33 Bodyline Series, and is remembered for hitting England captain Douglas Jardine (as popular in Australia then as Saddam Hussein is in the USA now) several times during the match. In the course of the article, Mr Derriman referred to Alexander's career as a Victorian Sheffield Shield bowler and how he dismissed the then young Don Bradman in a match in Melbourne in 1929. Watching the match was a ten year-old boy called Keith Miller and, according to the article, this dismissal was the genesis of the superstition about 87. As Miller grew up and began to play cricket, the Bradman 87 stayed in his mind and he noticed how many other club or state players with whom he played seemed to go out at the same score. Intrigued, I contacted Philip Derriman and mentioned my interest in this superstition. He suggested that I call Keith Miller and ask him about it. Now if Don Bradman is a deified figure to cricketophiles of a certain age, then Keith Miller is at least a demi-god.

A natural cricketer, outstanding with both bat and ball, Keith Miller is probably the greatest all rounder in Australia's cricket history. Faced with the choice of two cricketers to play for my life, I would unhesitatingly select Keith Miller and Sir Garfield Sobers of the West Indies. When I was ten years-old, I didn't want to grow up to be like Keith Miller, I wanted to grow up to be Keith Miller ( regrettably my talent did not match my enthusiasm - my batting was in the Bruce Reid mould and my bowling resembled David Boon's). Now, more than 40 years later, I was about to speak to the man himself. It was obvious that the decades since Keith had played test cricket had not diminished his interest in the Great Game. He was very willing to discuss his career and answered a couple of questions I have wanted to ask him for many years.

Yes it was true, as I had read in some book, that he had whiled away his time in the field whistling Beethoven symphonies and yes, he had, as a WWII RAF Mosquito pilot, diverted one of his return flights via the German city of Bonn, so he could see where Beethoven was born. Having cleared up those vital cricketing points, I asked Keith about his role in the 87 affair. Yes he had watched Don Bradman bowled for 87 in a Sheffield Shield match and he had retained that memory when he later began to play club, state and test cricket and he had noticed that this number seemed to occur more often than chance would dictate. He also said that he attributed this to nothing more than an interesting quirk and was surprised to hear, sometime during the 1970s, ABC commentator and former Australian batsman Paul Sheahan, discussing why the score of 87 was considered to be the Devil's Number. He attributed to Sheahan the suggestion that it was because it was 13 short of a hundred. However, as the figures below will show, Keith Miller was suffering from a delusion that is very familiar to all Skeptics.

If you expect to see some pattern in anything, then you will see it and will ignore those events that don't conform. But an even more astonishing fact arose in recent years when Keith was discussing his part in the history of the superstition with Philip Derriman. He referred to his 1929 watching of the dismissal of Don Bradman by Bull Alexander and, trying to ensure he had all the facts right, he looked up the scores for the match. There it was, in black and white. Bradman, bowled Alexander 89. Keith believes that Bradman had been on 87 when he last looked at the scoreboard and this number had stayed in his mind throughout the intervening time. For those who are interested in such matters, I have included a box which shows the numbers of batsmen who have been dismissed on all the scores between 71 and 100. This shows that only 10 Australian test batsmen have achieved this score (yes, I know the box shows 11, but someone did it twice).

Much more common scores in the vicinity are 85 (18), 83 (16), 88 (15), 89 (14), 92 (13), and 100 (17). Curiously, 17 players have also scored 112, when most of the scores around that figure have been achieved by only 6 or 7 players. Incidentally, I also checked on how many wickets had fallen in an Australian innings when the team score stood at 87. The total was 18, the lowest number for any score between 80-100. The highest number, 34, was when the score stood at 97. Thanking Keith for his time and information, I asked for his address so I could send him a copy of the article and was astonished by yet another amazing coincidence. He lives but a few doors away from Australian Skeptics secretary, Harry Edwards (it would be nice to be able to report that he lives 87 doors away, but it isn't true). But a good cricket story is not put to rest until we have milked every fact from it.

So let me tell you who were the Australian batsmen who fell at the Devil's Number. The very first was George Bonnor who was dismissed for 87 in the Sydney test against England in 1883. It was Bonnor's second highest score in 17 tests, so could hardly be considered unlucky. Australia won the test by 4 wickets. The second was Sammy Jones in the Manchester test against England in 1886. Jones, who lived to be 90, was the last survivor or the "Ashes" test of 1882. In 12 tests, 87 was Jones' highest test score. In this innings he was bowled by none other than Dr WG Grace. England won by 4 wickets. In 1902, Clem Hill achieved the score against England in the Melbourne test, which Australia won by 32 runs and he did it again in the Sydney test of 1907, which Australia won by 2 wickets. Clem Hill played 49 tests for Australia, including 10 as captain.

In the 1902 series, he achieved scores of 99, 98 and 97 in successive innings. While captain, he indulged in a bout of fisticuffs with a fellow selector and retired from test cricket shortly thereafter. The immortal Victor Trumper, was next to achieve the score, in the 1910 Melbourne test against South Africa. Australia won the match by 86 runs. Trumper, probably Australia's second most revered cricketer, played in 48 tests and died of Bright's Disease at the tragically young age of 37. Next in line was Jack Ryder who made 87 against England in Adelaide in 1929. He played 20 tests for Australia, five as captain and was a long serving selector in the post WWII years. England won this test by 12 runs. Twenty years were to pass before the score was achieved again, by Jack Moroney in a test against South Africa in Capetown, which Australia won by 8 wickets. Moroney made a century in each innings of the Johannesburg test in this series and made a duck in each innings of the first test of the next season against England in Brisbane.

This may be the only time a batsman has achieved this double double distinction. He played in seven tests for Australia. Brian Booth was the next to make 87, in the drawn Sydney test against South Africa in 1963. Booth, a classy batsman, also played hockey for Australia in the Melbourne Olympics. He played 29 tests, two as captain. The next to achieve the score, and perhaps part of the continuing mythology, was ABC commentator Keith Stackpole, against England in the drawn Adelaide test of 1972. An aggressive right handed opening bat, Keith Stackpole played in 43 tests. John Dyson made his 87 against Pakistan at Karachi in 1982, a match Pakistan won by 9 wickets. Dyson played 29 tests for Australia and took one of the finest catches I have ever seen on an Australian ground, which various commentators ascribed to the fact that he was also a soccer goal keeper. Recently retired spinner Peter Taylor was the last player to date to make 87, in the 1990 Wellington test against New Zealand. It was Taylor's highest test score in test cricket.

But we could not allow this to conclude without reference to the only Australian player to have achieved 87 not out. This was none other than that renowned pigeon fancier and Channel 9 commentator, William Morris Lawry, in the 1963 drawn Brisbane test against South Africa. Bill Lawry played 68 tests for Australia, 27 as captain. It is interesting to note that current Australian captain and world record test run scorer, Alan Border, has never, in 139 test matches and 10,000 plus runs, been dismissed for 87 in a test match. No one has ever scored 87 against the West Indies, India or Sri Lanka. In fact, 87 appears to be score achieved by fewer batsmen than would be expected by chance and, as shown above, with three of the 11 scores either the highest or second highest score made by the player concerned, not a particularly unlucky one. If one had to select an 'unlucky' score for Australian test players while within sight of a century, then 85, 88 or 99 would appear to fit the bill better. And what about the 'ton' itself.

No less than 17 players have been dismissed on the score. I may have taken a long and circuitous route to reach this conclusion, but that is the way we cricket cranks are. As a result, perhaps I have helped lay to rest one of the more curious and lasting superstitions that infects cricket and showed it to have little more substance than most other irrational beliefs. But I would not bet the mortgage on it, for, as that commentator nonpariel Ritchie Benaud has been heard to observe on more than one occasion, "cricket is a funny game". I would like to express my sincere thanks to Messrs Philip Derriman, Ross Dundas and Keith Miller for the willing and invaluable assistance they gave me in researching the information for this article. * In a sadly ironic footnote, after this story was written but before it was published, Harold "Bull" Alexander, died on April 15, 1993. He was 87.

the rathouse Why 87 is anything but Australian cricket's magic number - Sport - theage.com.au Why 87 is anything but Australian cricket's magic number Adam Gilchrist on his way to 87 against the West Indies in 2000-01, the most recent time an Australian made that score. Photo: Tim Clayton Geoff McClure November 20, 2007 WHEN it's all said and done, sport  cricket probably more than any other code  is all about statistics. Who or which team scores the most (or the least) wins. And invariably, it throws up some quirky numbers, not the least of which is this beauty, that Australia's unlucky number in Tests is 87  the consensus being that our batsmen seem to get dismissed for that high score more than any other (well, it is 13 short of a century, so no wonder). Yes, but has anybody ever sat down and laboriously gone through every single score to find out if it's true? Hey, cricket began in 1877, some 130 years ago  are you kidding?

Well, not only have we found somebody who has taken up the huge task, cricket tragic and renowned Hobart-based statistician Ric Finlay, but guess what  the 87 stat is a myth, and a whopping one at that. In fact, in the history of the game, only 12 Australian players  yes, just the miserly dozen  have been dismissed on the so-called Oz cricket devil's number, which equates to a miniscule 0.12% of the total number of scores made by our batsmen in the game's history. In fact, as further proof that 87 is anything but an unlucky number for Australia, the four scores either side of it feature more frequently  85 has brought about a batsman's downfall 22 times, 86 has done it 13 times, 88 20 times and 89 19 times.

Indeed, if you can't remember the most recent time an Australian batsman got dismissed for 87, it's because it happened way back during the 2000-01 season when Adam Gilchrist was caught Brian Lara bowled Colin Stuart for 87 in the fifth Test against the West Indies in Sydney. And before that, you have to go back more than 10 years, when Peter Taylor got 87 against New Zealand in 1989-90, and before that to John Dyson, who got that same score against Pakistan seven years earlier. ■In fact, the superstition about Australia' unlucky number supposedly began with Keith Miller was playing district cricket with South Melbourne, he was fielding alongside Ian Johnson in the slips when he commented that many batsmen seemed to be dismissed on 87 and in years to come, while playing for Victoria and Australia, the pair would nudge each other when a batsman or the team reached that figure.

The theory apparently was born from the fact that Miller, who as a 10-year-old, had gone along to the MCG in the 1929-30 season to watch Sir Donald Bradman bat for NSW against Victoria in the hope that the Don would score a ton but they were dashed, according to Miller, when Harry "Bull" Alexander bowled him on 87. Richie Benaud later picked up on it and the myth grew. The only trouble was, Miller's memory was wrong  Alexander had snared Bradman that day not for 87 but 89. Talk about a myth being horribly wrong all round! ■Finlay's extensive research also has unveiled other fascinating statistics, the best of which we saw an example of in the first Test in Brisbane when Australian opener Phil Jaques was dismissed the moment he reached 100.

For apparently, such is the relief of batsmen finally reaching the milestone over the years that 100 is the most common of all triple-figure scores, with 80 such instances, ahead of 101 (70 times), 105 (68 times), 103 (64 times) and 104 (60 times). ■Not surprisingly, the duck is the most common of all scores. For all cricketing nations, there have so far been 7004 of them, which equates to 12.41% and for Australian batsmen, the tally is 1225 (11.79%).

■The next most common score is one (2695 times for all cricketing nations and 492 for Australia) but jumping the queue ahead of two (2178 and 399) and three (1705 and 309) is the score of four, which has accounted for 2270 batsmen from all nations and 394 Australians, Finlay's theory being that batsmen probably have been buoyed by hitting a boundary first-up and immediately have gone for it again, with disastrous results. ■And just as batsmen seemingly relax upon reaching 100, the same appears the case with players bringing up their half-century. While 45 has been scored 313 times in all Test cricket, 46 259 times, 47 292 times, 48 269 times, 49 243 and 51 247 times, the most frequents of dismissals of players who reached the mid-40s is 50, which has accounted for 278 batsmen.

■Strangely, though, the same is not the case for batsmen who reach 150 and 200. More players have got out on 153 and 152 (both 20 times) than they do 150 (17 times) and in the history of the game, more players have been dismissed for 201 (12 times) and 199 (six times) than 200 (five times). ■Other interesting stats unearthed by Finlay include the fact that no player in the history of the game has scored 229, 238 or 245 and no Australian has ever been dismissed for 139, 148, 174, 175, 180, 184, 186, 193, 194 and 195 besides several scores beyond 200.

Mr Zero a hero WHEN you've just scored six successive ducks  as was the case with Devon Meadows C-grade batsman Daniel Marascia  imagine the pressure that was on him last week when he came to the crease as the No. 11 batsman with his team requiring two runs for victory over Pakenham. So did Marascia crack? The hell he did. The youngster opened his account by smashing the ball over the bowler's head for four for his team to win with an over to spare. One for him, Juan for her GREG Norman is not the only big-name sportsman to be out of pocket big time this year because of a divorce settlement. Basketball legend Michael Jordan is going through one of his own, with ex-wife Juanita tipped to pocket a lazy $185 million and ownership of their three-hectare estate in suburban Chicago. Reid all about it AS RARE as they are for some, golf holes in one happen regularly, so it takes a special one to rate a mention here. Here's a bloke who qualifies and easily so  Doug Reid, who aced the 173-metre par-three fifth at Kingston Heath Golf Club.

It was drinks all round in the bar that night  not only is Doug a 92-year-old war veteran, but he is also legally blind. Onya, ol' fella! Low scoring WORD just in that there was about as much scoring off the field  very little  as there was on the field during soccer's World Cup last year. Hospitals in Germany anticipated a surge in births early this year, nine months after parties and goodwill associated with the cup, but instead there were 800 fewer births this year than during the first six months of 2006. Who said that? The Numbers Game: Five of the Most Unlucky Numbers In Cricket | Bleacher Report The Numbers Game: Five of the Most Unlucky Numbers In Cricket Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more stories 2.9K 18 Comments Who can ever ignore these numbers. Cricketers claim they don't care very much about them but deep down inside they know how much they are affected. For fans like us these numbers often mean the crossing of landmarks or who has got a higher average. More than anything else, these numbers give us a chance to assess any player we don't know much about.

But there are some other kind of numbers. They are the ones which most batsmen want to stay away from. The bad omens. Though 7/10 times they do not make a difference, but still they are deadlier than other numbers. So I, another person looking for numbers (Not in Cricket but in exams) look at the five unluckiest numbers or five of the worst omens in cricket. 13 Dear Jesus Christ has left his mark on cricket too. 13 is considered to be an unlucky number as one of Christ's 13 disciples betrayed him. In cricket, we often see batsmen getting out on 87 which is 13 short of a hundred. We also see teams getting out on multiples of 13. More often than not, it is 169 (13 squared). Also the smallest first class score is 13 all out. Nelson (111) Nelson was French general who did not have an eye, an arm, and a leg (the leg part is only a myth). These three constitute 111.

Also, something I recently got to know from a fellow bleacher writer (Vishrut Aggarwal) is the fact about 111 looking like stumps without bails which means a batsmen is bowled. The effects of this can be a double nelson (222), triple nelson (333) and so on. Graham Gooch's 333 is a perfect example on the Nelson effect. He could have gotten a lot more if it weren't for Mr. Nelson. 99 I doubt if a batsman is ever happy after getting out on 99 or when he is stranded on 99. This is a number which is only a run away, but yet so far from the magical three figure score. Shane Warne always remembers how close he was to getting that hundred. Sachin Tendulkar himself has often got edgy on 99. It is a number that makes even the best batsmen do silly things. The Duck (0) "Quack Quack" is a sound no batsmen likes to hear.

Though Channel 9 is the only one which does it on the screen, each batsmen hears it in his mind at the time of getting out. The person who would be hating the number 0 is Marvan Attapatu. I am sure he knows how he was denied a test average of 40 due to 5 ducks in the first six innings of his like. A pair is when a person gets out on zero in both innings and a king pair is when he gets out first ball both times. 60s This last bad omen is the series of numbers from 60-69. More than an omen, it is a syndrome batsmen suffer with. The syndrome of not being able to go on and get a big one after reaching the 60s. These are the numbers that mark the distinction between a good and a great batsmen. I don't think I really need to name people in this category. You see this lapse of concentration so often. But this is not where I end. Something more interesting is the fact that these are bad omens only for the batsmen. For the bowlers, these are the few lucky numbers when they get a wicket.

Infinite numbers and so few chance for the bowlers. Cricket is so unfair.

Question: What score in cricket is considered unlucky by Australians?
Answer: 87